Bentley v. State, 8 Div. 925
| Citation | 450 So.2d 197 |
| Decision Date | 20 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 925 |
| Parties | David H. BENTLEY v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
The opinion of this court entered on January 31, 1984, is hereby withdrawn and the following is hereby substituted therefor on rehearing.
David H. Bentley, a licensed practitioner of veterinary medicine, was indicted for unlawfully prescribing, administering, or dispensing Hydromorphone (Dilaudid), a controlled substance, so placed under control by the Board of Health of the State of Alabama by § 20-2-20 of the Code of Alabama, as last amended, in violation of the Alabama Uniform Controlled Substances Act and § 20-2-74(a) of the Code of Alabama 1975. The jury found the appellant "guilty as charged", and the trial court sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment, of which he is to serve thirty days in the Marshall County Jail, with the remainder of the sentence suspended, and placed on probation for a term of five years.
The appellant raises three issues on appeal.
The appellant contends that his motion to quash the jury verdict and his challenge as to seating certain jurors who resided in the Guntersville division of Marshall County rather than the Albertville division was error and cites us to the Act approved August 18, 1909 (Special Session, Acts 1909, p. 16) and Alabama Local Acts No. 23, p. 12 (1919).
Local Act No. 137, Acts of Alabama 1936 at page 78, specifically provides that:
"[T]he Jury Commission for Marshall County, or persons hereafter authorized to draw jurors for the Circuit Courts of Albertville and at Guntersville shall provide one jury box only for both courts."
Thus the requirement for having separate jury boxes for the two divisions was repealed and is no longer in force and effect. Therefore, no error resulted from using jurors from one division within the county from the other division.
The appellant argues that his conviction was based on an involuntary confession made during custodial interrogation, which involuntariness would, under the statement, be inadmissible in court. We have carefully examined the record and the voir dire examination wherein the statement was inquired into outside the presence of the trial jury. The appellant contends that he made a confession on the promise of Sheriff's Detective A.G. Lang to have his bond reduced. Officer Lang testified that he never made any promises at all to the appellant. Officer Whitten testified that he knew of no promises being advanced. We are of the opinion that the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's statement was voluntary was adequately supported by the facts, and that the trial judge properly admitted the appellant's statement into evidence. It is the province of the trial judge to first determine the voluntariness of a statement in a voir dire examination outside the presence of the jury, and unless there is a clear abuse this decision will not be overturned. Snider v. State, 422 So.2d 807 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Hardy v. State, 409 So.2d 996 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Duncan v. State, 278 Ala. 145, 176 So.2d 840 (1965); Bills v. State, 49 Ala.App. 726, 275 So.2d 706 (Ala.Cr.App.1973); Shewey v. State, 48 Ala.App. 730, 267 So.2d 520 (Ala.Cr.App.1972).
Moreover, the record shows that the appellant was advised of his Miranda rights by Officers Lang and Whitten and that he freely and intelligently signed a waiver of rights form. See Shorts v. State, 412 So.2d 830 (Ala.Cr.App.1981); Hardy v. State, supra.
The appellant's final contention is that the State failed to adequately substantiate that Hydromorphone (Dilaudid) was a controlled substance on the date of the offense. The State attempted to show that Hydromorphone (Dilaudid) was a controlled substance by the introduction into evidence of copies of the State Board of Health's list of controlled substances. The appellant specifically argues that the State failed to prove such because they failed to lay a proper foundation to authenticate the document. The documents introduced over defense counsel's objections were copies of records of the State Board of Health certified as true records by the State Health Officer, who has lawful custody of those records. Certified copies of public records, signed and certified by the officer who has lawful custody,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Debardelaben v. Price
...present Alabama case law, certifiedcopies of public records are self-authenticating and admissible into evidence. Bentley v. State, 450 So.2d 197, 199 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). Similarly, Rule 902(4) of the Alabama Rules of Evidence ... provides for self-authentication of certified copies of publ......
-
Vizzina v. City of Birmingham
...and further amended July 18, 1984. "Ira L. Myers Ira L. Myers, M.D. State Health Officer and Records Custodian" Citing Bentley v. State, 450 So.2d 197 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), the defendant argues that the document was not properly authenticated because it contained the pre-printed facsimile sign......
-
Hamilton v. State
...the evidence. Carter v. State, 53 Ala.App. 43, 297 So.2d 175, (1974); Boggan v. State, 455 So.2d 228 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Bentley v. State, 450 So.2d 197 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). Edwards v. Arizona, supra, is instructive on the voluntariness issue. The trial court cited to Edwards in addressing the......
-
Bombailey v. State
...and certified by the officer who has lawful custody, are properly authenticated and admissible into evidence." Bentley v. State, 450 So.2d 197, 199 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). See also Ala.Code, § 12-21-35 (1975); Lokos; Norton v. State, 502 So.2d 393 (Ala.Crim.App.1987). This is one of the except......